HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-04-02 - Decision - 0006 Park RoadCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT of PLANNING AND ZONING
GEORGE HUBBARD - 6 PARK ROAD
VARIANCE APPLICATION #VR-04-02
FINDINGS of FACT AND DECISION
George Hubbard, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking a variance from
Section 3.10, Accessory Structures and Uses, of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations. The request is for permission to allow a detached accessory
structure (retaining wall) to be placed in the front yard, 6 Park Road. The Development
Review Board held a public hearing on January 18, 2005, March 15, 2005, and June 7,
2005. The applicant was not present at the June 7th meeting.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and
supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development
Review Board finds concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS of FACT
1. The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 3.10, Accessory Structures and
Uses, of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The request is for
permission to allow a detached accessory structure (retaining wall) to be placed
in the front yard, 6 Park Road.
2. The owners of record of the subject property are Bruce and Cynthia McGeogh.
3. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) Zoning District.
4. The structure for which a variance is being sought has already been constructed
without a zoning permit.
5. The plan consists of an untitled plan showing the lot, house footprint, driveway,
and retaining wall.
Title 24, Section 4468 of the Vermont Municipal and Regional Planning and Development_
Act establishes the following review standards for all variance requests.
On an appeal under section 4464 or section 4471 of this title wherein a variance from
the provisions of a zoning regulation is requested for a structure that is not primarily a
renewable energy resource structure, the board of adjustment or the development
review board, or the environmental court created under 4 V.S.A. chapter 27 shall grant
variances; and render a decision in favor of the appellant, if all the following facts are
found and the finding is specified in its decision.
(1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including
irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional
topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and
that unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances
- 1 -
or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulation in the
neighborhood or district in which the property is located.
The Board cannot identify any "unique circumstances or conditions" associated with the
subject property, and therefore it is the Board's opinion that this property does not meet
this requirement. The retaining wall could have been constructed in compliance with the
Land development Regulations, or not constructed at all, if it had been planned
accordingly.
(2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no
possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the
provisions of the zoning regulation and that the authorization of a variance is
therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property.
This property does not contain any unique physical circumstances or features, so the
subject property does not meet this requirement. In addition, the subject property is
currently developed with a single-family dwelling, which is a reasonable use of the
property.
(3) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
The unnecessary hardship is being created by the appellant, as the retaining wall was
constructed in the front yard. A variance would not be necessary if the driveway had
been constructed off of Golf Course Road.
(4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood or district in which the property is located, substantially or
permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property,
reduce access to renewable energy resources, nor be detrimental to the public
weIfa re.
The variance, if authorized, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood,
nor wou►d it permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent
property, reduce access to renewable energy resources, or be detrimental to public
welfare.
(5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will
afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning
regulation and from the plan.
The variance, if authorized, would not represent the minimum variance that will afford
relief or represent the least deviation possible from the South Bur!ington Land
Development Regulations. Pursuant to Section 3.10(A)(2) of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations, detached accessory structures shall not be placed in the front
yard. Allowing it to be placed in the front yard would represent a significant variance.
-2-
DECISION
Motion by Gayle Quimby, seconded by Larry Kupferman, to approve variance
application #VR-04-02 of George Hubbard.
Mark Behr — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Chuck Bolton — yea/nay/abstain/not present
John Dinklage — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Roger Farley — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Larry Kupferman — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Gayle Quimby — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Motion failed by a vote of 0-6-0.
Signed this _Z day of June, 2005 by
John Dinklage, Chair
Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental
Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this
decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to
challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long.
You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy;
finality).
-3-